Nebraska earns ‘F’ for judicial financial disclosure

12:01 am, December 4, 2013Updated: 12:19 pm, May 19, 2014

The Center for Public Integrity evaluated the disclosure rules for
judges in the highest state courts nationwide. The level of disclosure in
the 50 states and the District of Columbia was poor, with 43 receiving failing grades,
making it difficult for the public to identify potential conflicts of interest
on the bench. Despite the lack of information in the public records, the
Center’s investigation found nearly three dozen conflicts,
questionable gifts and entanglements among top judges around the country.
Here’s what the Center found in Nebraska:

Strengths:

The state, tied with South Dakota in 27th place, asks judges to disclose
gifts and compensation for performing any marriages. They also must report
other gifts or reimbursements of expenses, a feature that the Supreme Court
justices use frequently. Six of the seven justices reported trips to conferences
paid by outside groups.

Weaknesses:

Despite asking for information about gifts, the state does not require
judges to disclose the value of the gifts they receive. The state also
does not ask for information about the financial interests of the judge’s
spouse or dependent children except for their debts. Even then they are
not required to report most mortgages or credit card debt if the loans
were made on the same terms available to those who are not judges.

Highlights:

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman ruled in at least three cases involving
companies in which she owned stock. It is not clear how big her financial
stake was in each company, as Nebraska does not ask for that information.
But they were worth at least $1,000, the threshold the state requires for
reporting the holdings. The decisions she participated in, though, were
not uniformly in line with her financial interests. Miller-Lerman did not
return multiple calls for comment.

In 2011, she reported owning Union Pacific Corp. stock yet ruled
on a case involving the railroad, which was sued by the mother of
a 13-year-old killed by a train. She and the court reversed part of the
decision in favor of the mother, despite the ownership interest, yet also
affirmed part of the case in favor of the railroad.